Literal hermeneutics

One of the important matters I wanted to address with my series on Ezekiel’s temple is that of hermeneutics and their application in the interpretation of prophetic passages like Ezekiel 40-48.  I certainly acknowledge there are difficulties for my literal take on those chapters. However, there are also some profound difficulties for Reformed covenant folks who utilize a non-literal, more spiritualized view of the Ezekiel’s temple.

Because my literal hermeneutics place my theology in a position of criticism in what I would consider important matters of atonement, Christ’s cross work, and human salvation, I think it is necessary to demonstrate internal, theological and orthodox consistency with my literalism.

http://hipandthigh.wordpress.com/2013/03/28/answering-objections-to-ezekiels-temple-sacrifices/

I don’t think that’s the correct way to frame the issue. Amil interpreters (at least the astute, scholarly proponents) employ a consistent hermeneutic. They use the grammatico-historical method. They don’t shift hermeneutical gears when they come to Ezk 40-48.

For a comparison, take the Gospel of Matthew. A conservative evangelical scholar will interpret most of the Gospel factually, yet he will interpret the parables fictionally. However, interpreting the parables differently than the surrounding historical narrative doesn’t mean he suddenly flipped the switch to a different hermeneutic when he comes to the parables. He’s using the same hermeneutical principles throughout. And those principles make allowance for different literary genres.

Likewise, if he understands Mt 2:15 typologically, that’s consistent with his hermeneutical package.